The FDA Betrayed Us

In June 2017 multiple consumer advocates met with FDA. We agreed to multiple things (witnessed by 5 individuals). We abided by every detail of the agreement, FDA did not.

Dr. Karen Becker, an attorney friend and myself went to Washington DC in June (2017) for a meeting with FDA. Also participating in the meeting – via a conference call line – was Nikki and Guy Mael (the owners of the pug that died from consuming Evanger’s Pet Food). In attendance from FDA included Dr. Dan McChesney (Director CVM Office of Surveillance and Compliance) and Charlotte Conway (there were others in attendance from FDA but they are not pertinent to this post). That meeting started with Nikki telling the story of her dog’s death from pet food. FDA became extremely uncomfortable with that discussion – and asked us what we wanted…why were we here?

We discussed with FDA the following (brief version):

We asked FDA for labeling clarification of pet foods. Those that meet the legal requirements of food to be termed food. Those that do not meet the legal requirements of food be termed feed. FDA specifically stated to us this would be possible. We asked about a verification program for raw pet foods that don’t quite meet the legal requirements of human grade. FDA specifically stated to us this too would be possible. We then moved to discussion of time frame to implement the above. FDA explained the fastest route for the feed/food labeling and verification approval would be through the AAFCO process. And FDA stated they would introduce the feed/food labeling and verification at the August 2017 AAFCO meeting. FDA asked us to document the plan we discussed and submit it as an addendum to the previously submitted Citizen Petition and to email the same document directly to them. Per this request, that document was submitted as addendum and emailed directly to you on July 10, 2017. (To read the full story of our trip to Washington DC – Click Here.)

Per our exact agreement – below is link to the document submitted as an addendum to our Citizen Petition (submitted July 7, 2017) and emailed directly to Dr. Dan McChesney (July 10, 2017) of FDA/CVM. Below that is link to Regulations.gov – evidence to the exact same document accepted and published by FDA (click on pdf icon to view).

Again – everything included in the above ‘Addendum’ was discussed with FDA during our June meeting and agreed to by FDA. FDA never told us this was unacceptable, never told us we need to discuss other options. There are five witnesses to this fact.

On August 6, 2017 – days before the AAFCO meeting I emailed Dr. Dan McChesney asking for confirmation the agency would indeed do as they agreed. My exact email to Dr. McChesney:

Hi Dr. McChesney –I’ve emailed Charlotte, but have not received a response. I’m just wanting confirmation that FDA will introduce the feed/food labeling issue we discussed in June. It was stated at the time this could be suggested by FDA to be added to the Pet Food Label Modernization Working Group. Will you be going to AAFCO for you to make this suggestion, or will this be Charlotte? We just want this to get moving forward. If you could confirm FDA will make the suggestion to the Pet Food Committee – I would appreciate it.

On August 7, 2017 Dr. McChesney responded with:

Susan

I will not be going to AAFCO. Charlotte is going as is Dave. It is our intention to have Charlotte raise the labeling issue(s) at the Working Group meeting. It is our hope that there can be some middle ground found especially in the areas of transparency/availability of definitions, ingredient definitions and labeling that is more user friendly. FDA began inspecting under the FSMA requirements of the preventive controls for animal food regulations this pass September. Inspections will expand in 2018 and states will become more involved. The focus of the inspections have been CGMPs and in 2018 we will begin looking at food safety plans and how a firm is controlling hazards. While, the focus of these regulations is ingredient and product safety, it does give us (FDA and States) a greater presence and this will enable us to ask about sources of ingredients and to judge if potential hazards are being controlled and if the ingredients comply with the definitions being used on the label. I believe Charlotte arrives on Wed.

Though Dr. McChesney included some concerning language (“some middle ground”) – he specifically stated “It is our intention to have Charlotte raise the labeling issue(s) at the Working Group meeting.“ My mind was at ease – FDA confirmed they would do their part of the agreement.

The day prior to the Pet Food Committee meeting where Charlotte Conway was to introduce “the labeling issue(s)” we met in the hall. Witnessed by one of our group of attendees, I directly asked Charlotte Conway “Did you read the addendum I submitted?” She responded “Yes, I have read it.” Again, my mind was at ease – FDA appeared to be doing their part of what was agreed to (by all parties).

That is until…

During the last five minutes of a 2 hours meeting Charlotte Conway stated the following (note – this was her exact words, David Meeker’s exact words, my exact words – this is a quote):

Charlotte Conway:“I have a more political comment. CVM has been approached by consumer advocates and some interested consumers with interest in assuring that there is more information on pet food labels to help clarify and educate consumers as to what is in the pet food product. In our discussions, we really didn’t feel that we were going to be able to solve this problem right now. For those that have been around for years, we tried to update pet food labeling as mandated by FDAAA and it stalled out in the clearance process. And we don’t see that going forward anytime soon. And so my idea was that we could take that ask and move it into this work group – the Pet Food Label Modernization effort. I don’t think the ask is fully conceived, but the goal is very aligned with a lot of the work being done in some of these work groups. Some of what I am seeing in the ingredient work group doesn’t quite align with it, but I think my understanding it is mainly animal protein ingredients are of most concern to consumers and those are probably on the villain list. And hoping to insure that we get good information on the pet food label for consumers, I don’t know if that is creating more ingredient definitions for animal protein products so that it can be clear kind of the sourcing based on the name of the ingredient, I don’t know if it is information otherwise on the label – not the human grade we’ve already got that box but if there is other additional information to be provided on the label to talk about the source of those meat ingredients …if I’ve misconstrued Susan please let me know but I think it is mostly the meat ingredients that are a big part of the concern and we would request that these working groups consider that and consider how best to give the information to consumers about what is in the product in a clear and transparent and useful manner. I’d be happy to follow up in any discussions but I don’t have the answer today. It was just Dr. McChesney and I in that discussion that felt this was the appropriate place to take that.”

Note: FDA absolutely led us to believe this was a way to solve the problem. The ONLY discussion in question was time frame to achieve the labeling change. FDA themselves stated the fastest means to achieve a labeling change was through the AAFCO process. We never once asked for changing the names of ingredients during the meeting. We never once asked to create more ingredient definitions. Why would we ask for that when ingredient definitions are owned and privately held by AAFCO – not accessible to consumers. We never once called ingredients “villain ingredients”. We offered a resolve where industry could still utilize those ingredients and at the same time provide consumers with transparency. We specifically told FDA it was not our goal to destroy any ingredient industry or pet food manufacturer.

David Meeker National Renderers Association:“As a representative of those companies that make animal protein products – we have products that are on your villain list and that’s not because they are really villains its because of language and people understanding things – for example calling by products bad ingredients, they’re not. But we understand the pet food industry and the need for consumer translations. We do have customers other than pet food and we need the definitions that we have, we are very happy to help develop some new definitions, pet food grade definitions, some premium definitions.”

Susan:“That is sort of what consumers want – that we presented to FDA. But it is not per se just ingredients. It is the finished product. Pet foods are regulated as feed. This is what we approached the FDA with, they’re feed. The exception to feed is human grade – those meet all regulation of food. Consumers want to know – I have a petition that we did in just a very short time frame, we gathered almost 50,000 signatures in just a couple of weeks. 50,000 consumers want to know if they are buying feed or are they buying food. That is a very clear, quick, simple – just what we’ve been working on in our working group, the feed labeling. Plus federal law – the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act states if there is an alternate ingredient allowed, in the interest of transparency of the consumer, it must be stated on the label. Feed is not stated on pet food labels. They are labeled and marketed as food, yet they do not meet the legal requirements of food. And that’s what consumers are wanting. We are not saying get rid of them. When we went to FDA, we didn’t call them villain ingredients. We didn’t want to end them. We just want transparency. The consumer deserves to know what they are buying. Are they buying feed or are they buying food. It’s that simple.”

Charlotte:“The one comment I would have and reiterate is and I believe Dr. Solomon mentioned this and we’ve mentioned this in other talks is that at FDA at least we are clearly moving away from using the feed term. The way the law is written is it is animal food. We regulate human and animal food. And all the new publications that we are putting out we are using animal food. And so…”

Susan:“But still the FD&C Act defines food as what animals and humans consume. And it very clearly defines adulterated food – which a lot of those adulterated foods are openly allowed in feed and animal food. So that’s where there’s this problem. And if it meets food regulation, then let’s call that pet food. If it does not meet food regulation, lets call that pet feed. Let’s call it what it is.”

Charlotte:“I just don’t see that moving forward with pet feed.”

Susan:“That’s different than what you said in Washington.”

Charlotte:“That is absolutely not different than the message conveyed in Washington. At that point we mentioned the same message, that we are not using feed. We are open to supporting the addition of information to convey that there are different sources, I think Dr. Meeker’s idea about maybe coming up with pet food specific ingredient definitions to help delineate some of that – I think there are a lot of ideas to get better information – but I just don’t see pet feed going forward.”

Susan:“That is absolutely different than what you said in Washington Charlotte.”

Charlotte:“I guess we’ll disagree. But I’m open to ideas. We talked about a grading system when you were there and maybe there’s a way to set the working groups – I’m not on any of these working groups – but the working groups could come up with a grading system for pet food. But I have never recommended pet feed.”

Susan:“Ok.”

Never once during our meeting did FDA tell us pet feed was unacceptable. Never once.

I was blindsided by Charlotte Conway of FDA at AAFCO – all consumers were blindsided by Charlotte Conway of FDA. We abided by our part of the agreement, FDA (specifically Charlotte Conway) did not.

After the above happened, the AAFCO meeting was adjourned. I went back to Charlotte Conway with Dr. William Burkholder of FDA at her side – I told her she just threw millions of consumers under the bus. Her only statement was “I’m sorry you feel that way.” I asked her again – the same question I asked the day prior; “Did you read the addendum that I submitted?” This time she changed her story, this time she said “No. I did not read it.” It was clear she had not read the document, it was clear one of two things happened. Either Charlotte Conway has very poor recollection skills (nope, that’s not it) or someone changed her mind (perhaps FDA’s mind) on our agreement.

Some unanswerable questions…why didn’t FDA just tell us in June they would not accept pet feed? Why was that not ever mentioned – so that we could have discussed right then other options? Why did they tell us (5 witnesses) one thing and then completely change their story in front of the entire AAFCO audience? Was the goal to humor us in Washington DC and humiliate us in front of industry at AAFCO? Did they laugh after we left that day in June?…’Ha, we just sold them a bill of goods! They believed every word!’ Did industry ‘influence’ FDA to betray consumers? Do they think we won’t fight for our pets?

An email was sent to Charlotte Conway’s boss – Dr. Dan McChesney – Sunday August 13, 2017. In part that email said…

“We feel betrayed by FDA.

Consumers deserve better than this. Consumers deserve to know what they are buying – feed or food. One way or another, we are going to fight to make that happen. FDA can work with consumers or FDA can work against consumers. And let me remind FDA that Dr. Karen Becker has over 1 million followers in social media. With our network of consumer advocates we have a collective following of at least 5 million people. And our network has many connections in major mainstream media as well. We are a group of very determined individuals that are devoted to do what is right for pet food consumers.

We came to Washington DC to work with you. Charlotte made it very clear FDA is not willing to work with us. If this is your feeling as well, so be it – we will move forward with our original plans. It will most certainly be an ugly very public battle – something we tried to avoid by coming to you first. If Charlotte spoke incorrectly, I need to hear this from you very soon with your personal promise to how this can be promptly resolved.”

Should Dr. McChesney do the right thing, it will be shared with all. Should he not, let the battle begin. As you read this, we are planning the battle. News will be shared soon.

Personal note to all consumers: I vividly remember the full meeting with FDA. I vividly remember Dr. Karen Becker, our attorney friend and myself leaving FDA offices feeling we just achieved something great for consumers. Feeling that FDA was finally willing to work with consumers. None of us had the slightest clue FDA would betray us so dramatically. We took them at their word.

I am disappointed in myself for taking FDA at their word. I am more of a trusting soul than a non-trusting soul. I am more than disappointed in FDA – for betraying our trust in such a public manner (in front of 400 attendees at AAFCO). I should have known better. Lesson learned. All have my word – this mistake won’t happen again.

#FDABetrayedUs

Still angry but a little bit smarter about dealing with regulatory authorities.

Very true. Also, just as it has doctors on its payroll reviewing drugs for approval whether they work for big pharma or not, I’m certain there’s also individuals who work in some capacity for the pet food industry on the payroll. Conflict of interest, independent research and neutrality doesn’t seem an issue for the FDA.

Susan not surprised you need to have written documentation on absolutely everything and I mean everything; time and dates of conversation over phone, it is preferable if possible email back to that person what was said during the telephone conversation and if possible and attend any meeting with two people; one as a witness to the conversation. I worked with the feds in a regulatory agency and each individual may and often does give a different answer. The guy in the field often wants to assist but the “click” (inner big cheese group will often not support the field guy). It is wearing and tiresome to document every damn thing but you must and move up the food chain…..public awareness is your key to success everyone has a dog or cat family member….almost….get publicity…..I appreciate all of your efforts and FDA is corrupt….follow the money…

Thank you for fighting for us consumers, Susan. You are an honest person, and it is typical that honest people expect others also to be honest. The FDA has not been enforcing the laws in regard to pet food for years, as you well know, and neither they nor any other regulatory agency will be carrying our their assigned missions for years now. The damage is going to be horrendous. I know you won’t stop fighting though and greatly appreciate and admire that.

Hardly. If it did apply then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. We may not like what’s happening, but it doesn’t mean the definition applies. Susan’s experience with the FDA demonstrates the pressure of big business to remain dominant, so that corporate tax dollars can continue to fund a population’s insatiable dependency ON the government. The only way to fight the FDA on this matter, is to expand awareness and drive supply and demand. The PFI knows it’s just a matter of time. And worse, they have no way to defend their position. Which is why they don’t even want to touch the word “feed.” Unless the product you’re using is labeled “human grade” what your pet is eating, is “livestock feed” simply formulated for a cat or dog. The interests of AAFCO center around the impact of expense on Agri-business (and the ability to profit). It was never established to serve consumers, much less advocacy efforts!

Fred St Clair
Aug 15, 2017

Just how do we change things if not through government regulation and enforcement of the regulations?

You all worked so hard–and there is nothing wrong with expecting people to follow through with what they say. But it should not be a surprise that dishonorable people have acted with dishonor. FDA doesn’t have a particularly stellar record and it isn’t boding well for us.

It’s easy to forget, reading the comments from the smarter-than-the-average-bear pet owners who populate this site, that lots of pet owners are spending lots of money on crap food, not brands that have integrity. They do this because they believe the ads, don’t understand the word games that get played and/or don’t believe there’s anything wrong with corn gluten meal.

Here are the *US* sales figures for the top five pet food companies as reported by a recent PetFoodIndustry.com article:

#5. Blue Buffalo – $1,149,778,000 in sales in 2016.
#4. Hills Pet Nutrition – $2,264,000,000 in 2015
#3. Big Heart Pet Brands – no revenue figures were given other than they posted a $300 million increase in sales between 2010 and 2016.
#2. Nestle Purina PetCare had the second highest revenue of all pet food companies WORLDWIDE at $12.1 billion (that’s BILLION). That’s US sales only!
#1. Mars Petcare is projected to remain in the top spot but hadn’t released 2016 figures for the article. Their projected growth between 2010 -2016 was $2.54 billion – that’s growth, not actual revenue.

These brands are the biggest users of feed quality ingredients and yet consumers are purchasing these products in record amounts. All of these companies enjoyed growth that outstripped total revenue for quality brands.

For comparison, the ENTIRE freeze-dried pet food market had only $73.9 million in sales between 2011 and 2014. That’s all brands from all companies. The “natural” food category reached $8.2 billion in sales in 2016 – again that’s total sales of all brands. And the category includes some brands that still use feed grade ingredients due to – you guessed it! – no regulation enforcement. Evanger’s would be included in this category, for example.

So yes, pet owners spend lots of money to feed their pets. However, the vast majority of that money is spent with the very companies who undoubtedly hold the ear of FDA & dashed hopes for reform at the AAFCO meeting. This is what Susan is up against. Healthier food is a growing market segment, but by no means carries the clout that the Purinas, Big Hearts and Nestles do.

Thanks for fighting the good fight. I suspect that they had a change of mind and position between the time of your Washington meeting and the AAFCO meeting. It’s not unlikely that they consulted with and were influenced by industry representatives. Hang in there.

I wonder what Charlotte Conway got out of this: Money? A trip? Maybe she received nothing. Maybe she is just a lowlife scammer who scores a psychotic personal victory every time she runs roughshod over good people doing their best. It takes a certain kind of special to do what Charlotte Conway did, and I say that it the unkindest way.

Thank you for standing up for us Susan. They didn’t throw consumers under the bus. They threw themselves under the bus. I spend 4x the amount feeding my Great Dane and English Cocker than I do myself. I went vegan because I won’t support factory farmed meats that are subsidized by the horrific waste that is fed to our pets. To me it is a form of modern day slavery. Everyday more and more people are choosing species appropriate meals for their pets and themselves. No one trusts these billionaires anymore and they are paying the price. If they weren’t afraid they wouldn’t be buying/threatening FDA employees.

People are fed up with their “food” making them and there pets sick. FOOD NOT FEED for all of us!

As happy as I was to Initially hear about the news in June I was skeptical and didn’t believe it would happen. It’s crazy the government wastes so much of our tax payer money and does nothing. This is a great example. Tasks that were supposed to be completed in 2007 has still yet to happen.

I suggest starting to feed your pets home-cooked meals and don’t support the pet industry.

Is there a protest forum or petition to put up our opinion of Charlotte Conway and her poor representation of the facts to the public at large concerning their/her decision regarding our pets? Is there a way to make it known what the FDA did? I would like everyone to know her BY NAME out in the open for the public to see. I think more people have had it with what is going on with a public agency that is supposed to protect consumers, not big business. Wonder how long it will be before she gets a choice job with in the private sector. Terrible ethics. Terrible representative of the FDA. Shame on them both. Thank you for exposing them for what they are.

Unfortunately she is just a mouthpiece for the FDA. Sort of like Sean Spicer. Complain enough and they’ll just fire her and replace her with someone just as bad. Spend you energy contacting pet owners and your Congressional delegation. Gloves are off, we followed the channels and got slammed. Time to go to the courts and make this a front page headline issue!

Classic agency maneuvering…accept a private meeting, act like you’re in agreement and when the annoying citizens leave, close the door and go back to doing what you were doing before they so rudely interrupted your schedule. When challenged, especially in public, say “we’ll just have to agree to disagree” and walk away. Nobody changed their minds, Susan. They said what was needed to get through that June meeting and get you to leave. By giving you the impression they were on board, they got you off their backs for a little while.

This is how government gets citizens to throw up their hands in despair. Unfortunately it works far too often. Between a job or lack of funding, how many citizens can afford to keep chipping away at the wall of indifference that typifies those at the upper tier of regulatory agencies. I have so many friends who USED to work for FDA, CDC or EPA. They believed they could make a difference, until they realized it was the big boys (and girls) at the top who made decisions based not on data, but on clout, budget threats and influence peddling.

What are the repercussions of treating you this way? Absolutely nothing. There won’t be any front page headlines screaming “FDA Lets Pet Owners Down Again!” On the other hand, an elected official whose district is home to factory farms, rendering plants and slaughter houses can withhold funding if you piss him off.

Why do think the changes mandated in 2007 have yet to be enforced? The law was passed to show how very much our officials care and to placate the public. Once they believed their pets were being protected, the issue passed from their awareness. Our government and the pet food companies KNOW that attention spans are measured in days. Sure, we’ll blog about our outrage and disbelief but those ripples don’t reach very far. Until there is a national organization on the order of NAACP or AARP (two of the top ten influential organizations in 2016), pet owners’ voices won’t have enough volume to be heard above the industry’s.

But take heart, I’m sure FDA didn’t laugh at you. Citizens only warrant an eye roll from them. AAFCO on the other hand, smugly bought rounds for everyone in the smoky back room.

Well said. The difference however between then and now (for example 2007 and the present) is that the public now communicates through social media. Where once (you’re correct) publicity and media drove the day, is no longer. That’s why we can rant about this all day long, but shouldn’t burn the energy (motivation) needed to fight with information, facts and truth. It may sound all idealized and sugar coated, maybe. But did you ever imagine that virtually 50,000 people would sign a petition based on only one page of information Susan provided? It’s a crystal clear choice for people. Fancy barnyard style pellets or untainted food. They just want to know … which is which. Brilliant!

I admire your positive take on things, PacSun and there was a time when I was in the trenches fighting for herbal medicine the way Susan is for good nutrition. But as Dennis Miller would say “I don’t want to get off a rant here” but the impact of those signatures, *as astonishing as that accomplishment is*, was still ignored. People will put their name on all sorts of things online now, so the impact of petitions has dwindled. And I say again, what is the repercussions of FDA basically giving pet owners the big kiss off? Will those 50,000 or 100,000 signatures physically show up and picket FDA? Mars Pet Care? Congress? Even if they would it will be a day’s headline and forgotten. When’s the last time you heard about that big, social media fueled march in DC that featured silly pink hats? Yesterday’s news, ignored by elected officials even as it was happening except for the few politicians who thought showing up would help their campaigns. It didn’t start a revolution and nothing has changed. We need new tactics. Even Earth First has stopped spiking trees and burning Hummer dealerships because it was only getting them jail time.

Those signatures would have carried much more weight on individual letters, backed by a well funded non-profit with 50,000 members. I’m a techno-nudge so it’s beyond me, but maybe it’s time for one of Susan’s readers to step forward and front a kickstarter thing or whatever. The solution is funding to relentlessly knock on doors, call press conferences and use national ads to publicly call out the heads of regulatory agencies, Congress and every industry shill who uses their “professional credentials” to support the fraudulent claims made by big pet food.

A lot of people read this site. Including new readers (out of curiosity because of seeing the petition first. If you notice, Care2 cross-recommends common minded causes to others including those not involved with TAPF.

So the record needs to be straight here.

The petition is not wasted or futile because it’s a very efficient way to inform people about what pets eat! It spotlights the government’s and an agency’s focus on business, and NOT on animal welfare, or consumer demand.

This may be a dumb analogy, but you write down a shopping list on paper. It’s just a record and doesn’t change anything. But it reminds you to go to the store, and exactly what’s needed, and you take action. The petition as a piece of paper isn’t going to change the Target because signatures aren’t a threat. The threat is accumulating awareness. And that’s the key! Exponential sharing! (I’ve heard Becker has a million followers alone, Habib many as well). We take so much for granted here, and expect just as much because of it. Like we’ve been pounding the issue to deaf ears for a decade! But 90% of people (as you well know) have no clue what pet food or feed means! They’ve never even heard of TAPF!

Today the trend is people SPEAK to one another directly, not (just) through expensive publicity campaigns. In fact the credibility (impact) of the media is actually fading. Gone are card tables at Walmart, papers flapping in the wind, with customers looking at them oddly. Because (just like demonstrations) it’s not a sustained effort. The difference here is, Susan’s goals are only getting stronger. She is going to fight the battle, with or without any petition. Or whether or not anybody reads the website. However she’s giving US an opportunity to impact the future with her!! Like many things that have changed during “our” lifetimes, one day pet owners will look back and ask, so why was there even a difference in the first place! Maybe not everybody cares (like the penny minded) but certainly the educated and caring do.

An industry like PF doesn’t care about “today” because business survives on long-term STRATEGY. They already know in which direction they must go. Just calling something “organic” isn’t going to do it anymore, because what was once organically grown, might be waste product going into PF. The problem is, the Industry has to invest in change first. The response Susan got at the meeting “could” be seen as a complete disappointment. It would’ve been a whole lot easier to get started there. Except that for the very first time (at least public) they’re calling out ingredients as “villainous!” Why would they even be villainous EXCEPT for the public’s accumulating awareness! So now we have TAPF (around for 10 yrs.) hundreds of articles, dozens of meetings, endless conversations, failed promises. And a single webpage (so far) reaching 50,000 people who’re now exposed to a subject they’ll probably track through this site. Not only learning more about PF, but reminded how the government and an agency are screwing them (yet again). And one thing “democratic” minded people hate most, is not being given a choice!

You can be a lot of things … but (personally) I wouldn’t include being pessimistic as one of them. Not in this political climate.

First, thank you Susan, for your tireless hard work that has effected every aspect of your life with the sacrifices you have made in order to fight the fight to keep our pets safe. You have nothing to be disappointed in yourself about. Absolutely nothing. You are an honest and hardworking person who was duped by this Ms. Conway who deviated from what was discussed and accepted at your previous meeting with Ms. Conway and Dr. McChesney. You had no way of knowing that would happen. Can’t imagine how terrible it must have been to be sitting there listening to something entirely different from what was agreed upon.. That is really dispicable and very devious.Tape the entire thing next time so there will be no question what was said or who said it. It is a real shame to have to resort to that. Sadly, their actions made that necessary validate the truth.. Am hoping Dr. McChesney will do the right thing and be honest about what you all agreed on and were promised and then take appropriate action to uphold the promises they made for a quick resolution. That would be so simple. If not, going public is a great idea to enlighten and bring onboard the other million+ pet owners who will be happy to support you. Thank you, Susan, for being our hero and our pets’ guardian angel!♥

“It is our hope that there can be some middle ground found especially in the areas of transparency” !!! Legally, transparency has NO “middle ground”…either an agency is transparent or it is not.
I have been saying this for years, but it becomes more clear all the time: It is time to get rid of the FDA: they do very little, ignore laws, and do NOT protect the public in any meaningful way. Watch daytime TV sometime: the commercials are largely for lawsuits against companies whose drugs or procedures cause great harm/death to consumers.
There is absolutely no reason to waste taxpayer money on a corrupt agency that does not do what we pay them for. De-fund the FDA.

Thanks so much Susan for doing what you do. Those in government can’t understand why citizens no longer trust the government, this is a great example of why we don’t. Those in government set their own agenda, brushing off the citizens (those paying their inflated salaries and giving them their exorbitant benefits for life), telling us they know better what we need, than we ourselves know. I know what I want as far as my pets are concerned and I don’t need to be told by the imbeciles in Washington what is best for my pet. Government is clearly, without a doubt, in the back pockets of the big pet food manufacturers. Keep up your strength and resolve. You are doing such great work, and we conscientious pet parents, are very appreciative of all your hard work.

How would you like to go to work every day, and have to decide between your future and your integrity? Meet the FDA. And AAFCO. Honestly, you’d think this woman could at least have taken Susan aside to explain the dilemma! The problem being, is that Susan NEVER lies. So we know, what exactly transpired.

Of course AAFCO doesn’t want to revisit the concept of “feed” because that IS exactly the problem. The day they introduce the “difference” between feed and food, is the day it’s all over for the industry! But you know, every setback does have a silver lining! And now, virtually 50,000 people (who’ve made their preference clear in the petition) can see the problem for what it is. No transparency. If the meeting in June hadn’t proceeded, then there wouldn’t be the petition. But now it exists! And the “awareness” will continue to expand exponentially. Much more simply, would’ve been AAFCO for admit, yeah we produce “feed” … but we can offer “food” products too. To get ahead of the demand, and the coming trending, and help position the industry for a growing marketplace in awareness! The problem is, with deceit and and subterfuge of the FDA/AAFCO, is the failure of recognizing long term strategy. And now, all the followers realize, what the Industry is trying to hide! The case is just growing stronger. And a simple compromise …. simply could’ve worked …. in their favor! I hope the petition grows to 1 million. Don’t let it die!

“Never ascribe to malice, that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.”

This sounds like a lot of talk about betrayal, corruption, conspiracy and the like when most (not all, but most) bureaucrats and federal government workers of this type are overloaded with these types of requests, dispassionate due to their lack of personal empowerment in their job, and see no real incentive – only risk – to entertain specific causes such as these.

Thank you Susan for all you do. Sadly, “industry” got to the FDA, which is why they bailed & threw you, & subsequently all of us under the bus! I’m sure “payolla under the table”, was somehow part of “the deal” that got FDA to fold, it always seems to be the way of the world!

They best not underestimate you, or the other advocates that were with you at the meeting. They surely do not know who they are messing with!

I agree. The Food/Feed issue makes sense to consumers seeking transparency, but when the big pet food companies hear of it, of course they are against it. It would be a marketing problem for them, and would affect sales of their products containing “feed”. The timing is awkward as well, as consumers have gotten more savvy about avoiding the ingredients Meat and Bone Meal, Animal Fat, etc. and this has affected their bottom line. Instead of changing these ingredients, they choose to change the name of these “villian” ingredients so consumers can no longer recognize them and so think they’re not in there anymore. The fact that this issue is on the table at the same meeting where you hoped to address the food/feed issue, created an even less receptive audience than it might have been in previous years. When this course of action (relabeling “villain” ingredients to make them less recognizable/transparent) is actively being pursued in this meeting, they certainly wouldn’t be in favor of an different way of labeling their products (as “feed”) that would alert consumers to the presence of waste products. Transparency hurts them, and you know that when these companies got wind of pet “feed” labeling, they jumped on FDA and pressured them to diffuse this effort and at least water it down or delay it. This has been a terrible year of government eliminating as many regulations as they can to benefit the corporate bottom line, even if they are eliminating critical safety measures to protect our health, water, air, etc. The climate is pretty unfavorable towards creating a new regulation that would hurt the sales of big pet food giants, all in the name of transparency. I’m sure she was strong-armed.

Unfortunately the FDA had been deceitful for many years. I’m really not surprised that they played this game to get you in front of every one to in essence to “call you out”. It’s so street the way they handled this there was no mistake in my eyes. Corporate America has taught me to never take anything at face value and to demand all agreements and minutes documented. We all know war is the only option! THANK YOU SUSAN for all of your hard work and for being a lady about it. But not its time to dump the kindness and come in HARD and FAST there can be no trust with the FDA. Thank you again Susan for watching out for our fur babies.

Susan, can you get any media attention for this? You, the five witnesses, even people who have gotten news coverage of their pets dying because of what they were fed, if enough people band together and contact their local media, maybe, just maybe, more people will become aware of this issue. Sadly, I just think that there are not enough people making noise about this. You, Susan, are a pretty loud voice, but, not everyone knows of your work and this site.

If you can get some media coverage that would include information sending people to this site, we can open more eyes to the disturbing truth that sadly, the average American just has no idea about.

I get so frustrated when I try to tell people about ingredients in pet “food”, they just assume that it’s gotta be safe if it is sold in the store.

Forward them the “Petition” … in a single webpage, tells them everything they need to know. Also how they’re not alone in demanding better. My math may be off, but if distribution of that petition was expanded by 20 fold, we’d reach a million consumers.

No, you’re right. I understand the point. Politics (petitions, demonstrations) mostly fade away. But that’s because they’re concept (and not product) driven. No money is involved. Besides producing their own message, their impact is usually about inconvenience, disruption, community division, (sadly) personal harm, and liability to career politicians! Protests have an incidental effect, because they react to negative events. One problem often gets superseded by another, thereby redirecting attention and making new demands. By being community specific they also lack global alignment. And only occasionally does an agency permanently change for the better (just in response to the protest), when it’s more likely they’re responding to a lawsuit and settlement.

But if you notice (from very recent news, because we do NOT want to be political on this site!) the impact of the latest problem was far deeper than usual, in terms of the reaction of media and commentary. That wasn’t accomplished by any accident. Those who were responsible for igniting the conflict, were successful in keeping the media’s attention for nearly 48 hours (beyond the threat of Korea). There was the basic issue itself (the occasion of making a change) and the to-be-expected pros & cons of doing so. But a PAID resource was employed to do the real damage, which is what sensationalized the event. That kind of intervention (by using a very destructive tool) is to hold public attention, and keep it in memory. It will become the wave of the future as long as these “self-interests” compete to meet their respective deadlines to implement (their version of) “change.”

However we have here, the advantage of dealing with a “product.” Not theory, but facts. And I can tell you that the media jumps very high now, when a boycott is implemented against a TV show. Sponsors do not like a hot potato, when it impacts their bottom line. No business will be associated with bad publicity OR an unpopular trend.

Susan’s petition isn’t just a petition for its own sake. It’s the mass circulation of awareness. Free information. And it’s brilliant! In one single webpage Susan lays out the reasons for identifyin a product as feed or food. Of course some people won’t care; they’re the same ones who never watch the news! But it doesn’t alter the momentum of the world changing around them! I’ve been able to send the petition to people who wouldn’t listen regarding “The Truth About Pet Food.” Now it takes “me” out of the middle. They can see it’s a growing trend. You get (eventually) a million people who DO sign. Or just read it. And the next step is to SHOW them a better product! Mass appeal is the converse of boycott. Either bad publicity or good news will drive the appeal! We’re no longer scaring them with the “truth about anything.” We’re giving them facts, and the reality of regulations! How hard is that to understand. With more people being informed through social media now (than by traditional methods) this will absolutely continue to trend!

What the PFI fears most is not getting ahead of the issue first, knowing “feed” is full of “villainous ingredients” …. and more than just 4 of them!

Susan you, Dr Karen Becker and your Attorney Friend acted with the highest of integrity and honored every pet owner and pet by just being there. I say you should be proud of yourself because no other person/s have had the courage to stand up and shout (diplomatically) for animal pet food rights to be implemented. Yes you and your Knights (Dr Karen Becker and Attorney Friend and others) have rattled their cage and you will not back down, it is NOT over yet until processed pet feed is safe for our beloved pets consumption. STAY STRONG. look at how far you have come…from a pet owner to business owner to networking with revered celebrities and community heros. You are unstoppable and amazing woman. Your just starting – we can’t wait to see you grow further – every day is closer to your VICTORY. We love you Susan. X

Once again, THANK YOU for all that you are doing. For being my voice, for leading me to making my own dog food, for opening my mind to what should be done for our pets. YOU as well as others are what will be the catalyst for change. The ball is in motion. The word will get out and people will see how they have been duped into thinking pet “feed” is “food.” I will support you however I can. Education is key, the consumers will prevail. Bless you all!

As long as it’s legal please start videorecording ALL face-to-face correspondence with these people. Charlotte Conway, or any other slime ball, can’t wiggle their way out with bulls**t if you have solid evidence of what they said.